- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by .
JimmyT wrote: I have edited this [original post here] and cut it back a lot because I’m not sure that posting huge chunks of legal verdicts improves the understanding of these issues. Most people won’t read very far into these documents. Make your point, by all means quote a line or two, and then please provide a link to the document you’re quoting. But I think great long screeds of detailed copied and pasted material turns the vast majority of people off and halts discussion in its tracks (as you can see right here). – JimmyT
Here is what is missed by some many people.
It doesn’t matter what they think, it doesn’t matter what Jimmy T thinks, it doesn’t matter what I think or some brief or anyone, except the person behind the bench.
These screeds of material are what determines an outcome and if it turns people off then that only lessens any hope they have if they engage the system. If it halts discussion then that is irrelevant as the opinion of anyone other than the person behind the bench (the Member, the Magistrate, the Justice) is all that really matters. And their opinion is determined by what you call ‘screeds of detail’.
The judiciary will tell what the issue is and then give their reasons for their decision. If one wants understanding it is in case law.
Never has the opinion of a person from this forum ever swayed an outcome at a judicial level.
Sorry to say it ; but welcome to the ‘rule of law’.
I have seen JT develop over the last 10 or more years and his understanding of the Act is better but still he has not come to the real party.
Do you find it strange we all live under the rule of law but ‘the State’ at no point in our compulsory education ever give us any tools to understand the rule of law or operate within its strange world?
There is a reason for that.
- This topic was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by .
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.